Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Now, we do ultimately agree, but please don't amend your argument and pretend you didn't.

I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there. While I used the point that in WWII we were not afraid to firebomb or nuke dense population centers to illustrate that it. I wasn't making the point that bombing Hanoi would have ended the war. You seem to be fixated on the point of bombing things. I did not say that increased bombing in Vietnam would have brought us victory or that the supposed lack of it was a symptom of America's lack of will.

My point was that since WWII the U.S. hasn't had the ability to manifest the will to win that would lead them into any theater, across any border, or over thousands of bodies just to achieve victory. We fought against the Axis Powers WHERVER we found them. If we lost thousands of men, we sent more. By the time of the Korean and Vietnam War the will to prosecute those Wars in that manner just didn't exist. Are you saying that isn't the case? Were we signing treaties calling for nothing short of unconditional surrender on the part of Korea, North Vietnam and China?

The Korean and Vietnam Wars being "reasonably irrelevant" (your words) is a symptom of a Nation that is incapable of winning a war that it CHOSE to fight simply because the will is not there to win it no matter the cost.

So, in Vietnam and Korea we should have fought Communists wherever they were found?

Isn;t there some military conventional wisdom about Land Wars in Asia.

Yes there is. Unless your name is Genghis Khan, you'll always lose!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've created a monster with this thread

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.


Yeah, I know, Patton was a crazy mofo who didn't give a flying rat's gak what anyone thought, he was going to fight and win wherever he fought, and he brooked no cowardice, and hated lazy people with a passion. But the fact is, wherever he fought/led men in fighting, things got done and fairly quickly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.

lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)

My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.

lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)

My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).

I'd lump British ones in there as well. If your claiming Primadonna, then Montgomery fits in there better then some of ours.

Plus, I'd hardly call Eisenhower one.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.

lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)

It was a serious suggestion. If you find the Airforce insulting perhaps that's on you ja? and if you can't take this kinda ribbing, you really shouldn't be in the Corps kay-det, regardless of your 3D printing skillz.

Modern Japan really isn't that weird, the whole tentacle thing is actually /our/ fault because we imposed some TERRIBLE post war censoring laws on them.

 djones520 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Patton is a pretty good place to start looking. MacAurthur was headstrong and far too sure of himself. When put in charge of the rebuilding of Japan, his goal was to make it "new America" basically, by forcing various aspects of America onto the Japanese.

lol, Is that why modern day Japan is so weird?(referring to their messed up porn/sex industry, among other things)

My opinion of the American WW2 era generals is that they were all Primadonnas, although they were no doubt effective in what they were tasked to do (well, the "big names" anyway).

I'd lump British ones in there as well. If your claiming Primadonna, then Montgomery fits in there better then some of ours.

Plus, I'd hardly call Eisenhower one.

Don't get me started on the British generals, lol. Eisenhower, yeah he wasn't, but that might also be because he was the Commanding General of the ETO as of summer 1942...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

That's why the Navy's great. The only way that story gets better is if this was in the time frame when the hilariously style-reasons-only blue Cobra Commander NWU not-camo was adopted.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I did no such thing, the determination to do ANYTHING NECESSARY was simply not there.

Yes, and I've explained to you several times now that the reason the will to do anything necessary wasn't there was to do with the conflict itself, not some fuzzy brained notion of a change in American culture. WWII was a war in which the US faced an existential threat - be defeated by Germany and Japan and the US as there was a fair chance that sooner rather than later the US would no longer exist as a country. Whereas defeat in Vietnam meant nothing to the US - some country in Asia had a different despot in charge.

If you don't want to get it, then don't get it. But I'll give the example again, just in case you're actually still trying to figure this out;

There's a tournament coming up in 5 days, and I think if I can get my last five minis painted in time I'm a pretty good chance of winning. So I pull out all the stops, piss off the wife by spending the evenings painting instead of talking to her, cash in a favour with the neighbour to have him carpool the kids to jazzballet, that kind of stuff.

A month after that and I've got a friendly game lined up for the weekend. I want to get my new unit all painted up and ready, as I'd like to deploy a fully painted force. There's only 4 models that need painting, so it won't even take as much effort this time around. And yet, I don't chance getting the bad books with the wife by disappearing to study, and I actually take the kids to jazzballet when it isn't my turn, to make up for last time.

Is this because I no longer have the will paint like I used to? Or is it because having a fully painted army ready for a tournament was worth the sacrifice, while having a fully painted army ready for a friendly game against a mate wasn't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Again, yes, they tested extraction from a C17, that is the 2004 test. The test was not really designed to see if the Stryker was air dropable, but rather can a C17 handle the extraction. A subtle difference, but a difference.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. On the earlier description of air landed I thought about posting something along the lines of 'that sounds like more of an achievement for the plane than the stryker', and now what you've explained helps me make sense of all that. Cheers.

Takes a lot more to have them drop certified, and more to make it a valid strategic option. They may get there (the recent Unified Quest exercise assumed the capability for I think the 2025 time frame, I may be off on the time frame).

Air landing is impressive if done right. It isn't a leisurely unloading and when you are talking small dirt airfields with very limited ramp space dumping a company of 21+ Strykers (11 C17 loads minimum) ready to fight in minutes is a very impressive thing.

I saw someone say MRAPS were better. I disagree. They are different. They are not nearly as mobile as Strykers, even the MATV variant, and aside from the troop capacity you have other issues. A Stryker company has C2 vehicles, mortar carriers, MGS Strykers as well as the ICVs , ambulance and Fire support Stryker. There are not MRAPS that can cover all those roles. MRAPS are pretty much limited to roads, and are just designed for a different mission than the Stryker. They are not 'better', just different and cannot really replace the Strykers. They are much more of a logistics nightmare (higher fuel consumption and maintenance requirements).

Interesting, thankyou.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes. It involves actually fighting the war instead of playing games. (Translation: Actually stomping the gak out of Northern Vietnam and taking the fight to them)

Sure, but it isn't too hard to realise that the problems that would cause weren't worth the win.

At which point I guess we can say that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, but that's something that's only clear in hindsight. Who knew the North would be willing to whether that many casualties, and who knew the South Vietnamese leadership would continue to be that incompetent throughout.

Which I guess is a good reason to recognise wars have lots of unknown unknowns, to borrow a phrase, and you should only get involved in them when you have to. Which leads us back neatly to why expanding the war in to North Vietnam was such a bad idea - even more unknown unknowns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

The Phillipines would have to be a pretty big black mark against the guy, wouldn't it?

I doubt Hannibal Barca could have had the Phillipines turn out much differently.

MRAP can be easily flipped. MRAP turret gunners were becoming main targets.

Stryker are a target being that they are Stryker. Were quite exposed to IED's that were designed to get them. The V hull of the Stryker were being introduced in 2010. Before 2010 they were also equip with one Halon system. Once a squad from 2-5 Stryker burned alive when a IED flipped the Stryker disabling the Halon system and torqueing the rear hatch. They were equipped with two Halon system and a nifty extraction tool for the rear hatch

 djones520 wrote:
I doubt Hannibal Barca could have had the Phillipines turn out much differently.

Losing the Phillipines, sure, but the loss of FEAF for basically nothing? When you've received warning of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour, been informed of strikes at Luzon, and you've managed to track the incoming attack force by radar, and you still get surprised and lose half your planes on the ground, I'm going to say that's not something that could happen to anyone.

I still maintain on a hindsight note we should have been involved in Vietnam.


Fighting on the same side as Uncle Ho. Only reason we weren't was a racist in the White House and a bid to keep those useless cheese eating surrender monkeys (the French if you're not tracking) in NATO

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For my money, MacArthur is one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and probably America's greatest commander. Not that I'm biased with my avatar in the annals of American military history, I cannot think of a better commander.

Several gentlemen of the Navy, from John Paul Jones to Chester Nimitz and Bull Halsey, would like a word with you.

Ground Commander Seaward...Ground Commander

 Jihadin wrote:
Ground Commander Seaward...Ground Commander

To be fair, he didn't actually specify "ground commander" he merely said "military commander"

 Jihadin wrote:
Ground Commander Seaward...Ground Commander

In that case Washington, that one guy who trashed Tarlton at the Battle of the Cowpens, Generals Lee, Grant and Sherman, Black Jack Pershing, George S. Patton and goddamn Chesty Puller would like a word.

In that case Washington, that one guy who trashed Tarlton at the Battle of the Cowpens, Generals Lee, Grant and Sherman, Black Jack Pershing, George S. Patton and goddamn Chesty Puller would like a word.

Well...off the bat. US of A was not even around when Washington lead..

1. He wasn't around when both sides lined up and just blew each other away so we can skip Lee, Sherman, and Grant. Though in that time frame I go for Lee being the best being he used his limited resources the best way he can.

2. Pershing...well....chasing Mexican bandits wasn't involve in Pacific..

3. Patton died a bit after WWII but he was geared towards a western European front basically US Armor vs Panzer units. Did you know he was related to Puller? Just saw that.

4. Puller was a Combat Ground Commander. He was part of the pointy end of the spear.

5. I prefer Ridgeway over Mac

 Jihadin wrote:

2. Pershing...well....chasing Mexican bandits wasn't involve in Pacific..

3. Patton died a bit after WWII but he was geared towards a western European front basically US Armor vs Panzer units. Did you know he was related to Puller? Just saw that.

4. Puller was a Combat Ground Commander. He was part of the pointy end of the spear.

2. Pershing did have command over US Forces in the Philippines during the Insurrection, and did some things that under today's laws would be considered Crimes, but were highly effective terrorist deterrents.

3. I think that while Patton was definitely geared towards fighting Tanks and a regular standing army, he would have done well in Korea as well (but lets face it, he probably wouldnt have been around for Vietnam)

4. Puller was great. A bit of trivia: Chesty Puller was against the use of the Flamethrower in the military. His reasoning wasnt the humanity of it, or some other moral objection. He didnt like it simply because he couldnt have a bayonet put on it (or so the legend goes)

I think the criteria used by some to rate these leaders is a but flawed and subject to popular perception...

Washington shouldnt even rate, he lost most of the battles he fought, his greatest assets as a military leader had little to actually do with military leadership.

Grant was an absolute butcher (of his own men, let alone the enemy). While he was a genius at the "Operational Art," chances are you wouldnt want to serve under him.

Lee was a great general, but a lot of it had to do with his divisional/corps commanders, Longstreet in particular. The one time Lee didn't listen to Longstreet was Gettysburg, and we know how that went. Longstreet definitely rates as a great in my book.

Know who Im surprised wasnt mentioned? Mad Dog Mattis.

Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.

The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...

Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.

 djones520 wrote:
Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.

The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...

Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.

Not to mention Washington apparently ran a spy network that puts the CIA, MI-6, and KGB all to shame... and THAT's where I think Washington actually did the most damage during his tenure in command.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Your estimation of Washington does a great disservice to you Chaos.

The simple fact he took a band of rag tag farmers, and led them to victory over the strongest military power of the age alone...

Washington was more then just a general. He was a Commander in Chief. He was, and still is, the epitome of generalship.

Not to mention Washington apparently ran a spy network that puts the CIA, MI-6, and KGB all to shame... and THAT's where I think Washington actually did the most damage during his tenure in command.

His tactical record may look shoddy, but Washington wasn't just a regular general. He did EVERYTHING that generals we are compairing him to did not have to do. As I mentioned, he was the Commander in Chief, he wasn't just a general of the Army. It was his responsibility to oversee every aspect of that war, not just the battles. espionage, logistics, public affairs, etc... and he did it all with back country folks who had very little to no professional military training.

Look a bit further into the father of the US Military Drill and Ceremony. Friedrich Von Steuben basically drilled the Continental Army to stand up to the British Regulars after time at Valley Forge.

 Jihadin wrote:
Look a bit further into the father of the US Military Drill and Ceremony. Friedrich Von Steuben basically drilled the Continental Army to stand up to the British Regulars after time at Valley Forge.

Yeah, Steuben was a godsend to our troops.

George Washington's War, I'd highly suggest that book to folks who want to learn more about how he fought that war.

By February 5, 1778, Steuben had offered to volunteer without pay (for the time), and by February 23, Steuben reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge. Steuben spoke little English and he often yelled to his translator, "Over here! Swear at him for me!" Colonel Alexander Hamilton and General Nathanael Greene were of great help in assisting Steuben in drafting a training program for the Army, which found approval with Washington.

I be on the bleachers just cheering him on.

chaos0xomega wrote:


Know who Im surprised wasnt mentioned? Mad Dog Mattis.

I'd follow Mattis to hell and back any day of the week. However he's a bit young for the crowd we've been talking about.

I really must concur that you aren't giving Washington much credit. He avoided battles as much as possible, especially decisive engagements until he could enter battle in such a way that utterly favored his army, with short supplies against a better trained, armed and equipped foe this was the ONLY sane strategy. What use is winning a battle when it exhausts much of your manpower and loses the war?

I concur with my military history professor on the subject of George Washington. One of the best ways to judge a man is by how the men he trained behave. Well the Big G.W. trained Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, taught him everything during their time together during the French Indian wars and earlier in the Revolution, and the Battle of Cowpens was an absolute spanking delivered to a superior sized and armed British force lead by none other then the bad guy from The Patriot. (seriously.) any way, beautiful double envelopment playing to the weaknesses of the militia under his command (a trick he learned from George) while taking advantage of Tarleton being an arrogant donkey cave.

What in the name of God has happened to this thread? I turn my back for five minutes and I come back to George Washington and the battle of Cowpens!

At least when I was talking about Macarthur, it was relevant to the discussion, as MacArthur was supreme commander of UN forces during the Korean War, which, may I remind people, fits into the 1945-1972 timeframe. Where does 1781 fight into this?

To use one of my favourite American sayings - this discussion has turned into a goat rope session!

My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.

Yeah, I'm looking at you Kalashnikov, Jihadin, djones, chaosomega

It has been a rather interesting thread though; so there's that!

Well, I'm pretty sure Korean, Chinesse and Vietnamese military forces int eh field had a very different logistical method than the US troops they faced. These logistical problems/methods would play a pretty big role in how the units themselves would need to fight.

Therefore, Americans could rely more on overwhelming firepower and less on fieldcraft where the opposite was not true of their opponents.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


My original aim was to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the US fighting man, 45-72, and compare how he matched up to his Soviet/Korean/Chinese counterpart, instead, this thread has been hijacked for nefarious ends.

In this context though, Washington, among others greatly formed our fighting/military thinking processes that actually have an affect on the way we wage wars to this day.